Comments by "Bo McGillacutty" (@Mrbfgray) on "TIME" channel.

The SITUATION is man made yes. Over a century ago it was normal for these wild lands to burn off semi-regularly, Native Americans would set fires seasonally keeping the forests open and healthy preventing excess fuel load to build up, otherwise lightning would do the trick. Some tree species require fire before they will seed. It's trivial how they start it's ALL about how we have gotten to the stage where they are catastrophic instead of cleansing, clearing the brush without taking out the large healthy trees. At this point it's one disaster after another waiting to happen, eventually we may be motivated to deal with it better I HOPE. SO predictable.
2
@naomijohnson6797 Good GRIEF. Are you seriously naive enough to give any credence to THAT sort of childish ignorance?? No offense but THAT sort of bullshit is extremely unhelpful. It doesn't matter HOW they start , something will inevitably start them, it's all about decades of fuel build up in the wild lands, something that was never a problem until modern times when we put out every fire. Frequent fire is essential for healthy forests, if burned off frequently the fires are non threatening and GOOD for the forests in multiple ways, they burn low and slow not fazing the big healthy trees and not particularly dangerous to people nor animals plus controlling insect pests. It's only after decades of unchecked brush growth that allows for these devastating fires.
2
A person not THE.
2
@4AK5 The primary problem is that these wild lands were MEANT to burn almost annually there by keeping them open, healthy and with low levels of brush to fuel the fires, nothing like what we see today where you can't even walk through the forests in many places. Over a century ago this never happened, Native Americans would set fires seasonally and otherwise lightning would take care of it. Some species off these trees can't even seed until fire passes below them, frequent fire is an essential element. When fire is frequent it doesn't damage healthy large trees and it never becomes catastrophic as it does today after decades of mismanagement. Native trees in these areas often have highly fire resistant bark--take a look at a Jeffery Pine for example, that bark can easily be several inches thick or more and it's essentially impossible to burn there by protecting the tree. Fire is OBVIOUSLY naturally common. It's crucial to understand the situation before we can deal with it in a productive fashion.
2
NOT to be callous but this was not unexpected, this was inevitable. How many times before we are motivated to deal with the fuel load?
2
These fires are primarily all about wild land mismanagement, fire is normal and natural, healthy when it happens frequently enough, every few yr.s, but we have prevented them and now the fuel load, brush etc., has become so thick it takes out EVERYTHING instead of simply keeping the forest open as it did prior to a century or so ago. Native Americans would set fires seasonally and this never happened. It's very telling that some species of trees REQUIRE FIRE before they will seed in these areas. (pardon me taking a joke post seriously but the reality needs to be understood)
2
@percivalsweetwater9992 That's a contributing factor but not even close to the primary problem here. These fires need NOT be catastrophic if they were frequent as they historically were.
1
@naomijohnson6797 At least for those of us who live in these areas (I have ash all over my yard rt. now) this is an OLD and serious problem that requires appropriate, productive SERIOUS response. These fires are in no way a surprise, they are absolutely inevitable given our mismanagement of wild lands, lands that have evolved over eons to frequent fires. Some trees can't even reproduce without fire passing under them. Jeffery Pines have bark several inches thick that is almost impossible to set on fire, the whole system has been thrown out of wack with predictable results, primarily due to NOT ENOUGH FIRES--as ironic as that my sound if the concept is new to you. It's crucial that the public understands the situation so we can move forward and make the necessary changes to our policies. Most of the population are now located in cities and somewhat isolated from it, understandably they often don't get it, this is why I am beating this drum as I have been for many yr.s now.
1
@Madronaxyz Yes it's multi-faceted, complicated. And perspective matters, 5 or 10X more acreage burned a century ago in the USA than in recent decades. There's a reason hype media (only sort many ever experience) starts the clock around 1984, that was the coolest time of last 100 yrs and the lowest burn acreage. The highest temps ever recorded were in the 1930's, the Dust Bowl wasn't just bad policy and farming practices. Coincidentally the coldest time in the last 10k yrs was the 1880's when record keeping began. Warmer climate means more water vapor, more precipitation and of course water vapor dwarfs all other greenhouse gasses combined. CO2 is a bit player in climate, not trivial but not remotely THE driver, naturally it greatly enhances greening of Earth, crop yields and so on. It also adds a little security from the ultimate catastrophe--too low CO2 to support plant life which has nearly happened a number of times in last few million yrs. CO2 is correlated to climate very closely but it often lags temperature which makes sense when realizing 40X more of it dissolved in the oceans than in the atmosphere, warmer water holds less. Climate models don't work, you can't run them backwards to predict, say the Medieval Warm Period, which was 1.5C warmer than today, nor the "Little Ice Age" we are arguably still recovering from. Both of those episodes must be dodged or data modified to fabricate the infamous "hockey stick" farce.
1
Because you are ignorant.
1